list_repo_dependencies

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It accurately declares 'Read-only graph traversal with no side effects' and explains empty results. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but for a read-only tool this is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (introduction, usage, behaviour, parameter guidance). It is concise at 4-5 sentences with no fluff. Each sentence adds value, making it easily digestible.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description clearly states the return format: 'Returns a JSON array of repository names.' It covers the tool's behavior, parameters, and usage context comprehensively for the complexity of the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond schema: repo_name must match indexing, max_depth defaults/limits, reverse toggle behavior. This extra guidance helps the agent use parameters correctly, justifying a 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Read-only cross-repository dependency graph lookup' and explicitly answers the two key questions ('which repos does this repo depend on?' and 'which repos depend on this repo?'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like explore_file and find_callers by focusing on repository-level dependencies.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use BEFORE cross-repo analysis' and 'Use reverse mode for impact analysis before breaking changes in shared libraries.' It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to decide.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.